Obama's Carbon Ultimatum: The coming offer you won't be able to refuse.

Liberals pretend that only President Bush is preventing the U.S. from adopting some global warming "solution." But occasionally their mask slips. As Barack Obama's energy adviser has now made clear, the would-be President intends to blackmail -- or rather, greenmail -- Congress into falling in line with his climate agenda.

AP.Jason Grumet is currently executive director of an outfit called the National Commission on Energy Policy and one of Mr. Obama's key policy aides. In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.

Well, well. For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration. The complaint has been that the White House blocked EPA bureaucrats from making the so-called "endangerment finding" on carbon. Now it turns out that a President Obama would himself wield such a finding as a political bludgeon. He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.

The EPA hasn't made a secret of how it would like to centrally plan the U.S. economy under the 1970 Clean Air Act. In a blueprint released in July, the agency didn't exactly say it'd collectivize the farms -- but pretty close, down to the "grass clippings." The EPA would monitor and regulate the carbon emissions of "lawn and garden equipment" as well as everything with an engine, like cars, planes and boats. Eco-bureaucrats envision thousands of other emissions limits on all types of energy. Coal-fired power and other fossil fuels would be ruled out of existence, while all other prices would rise as the huge economic costs of the new regime were passed down the energy chain to consumers. ...

For years, Democrats -- including Senator Obama -- have been howling about the "politicization" of the EPA, which has nominally been part of the Bush Administration.

Ever since Murdoch took over the wall street journal the ability of the paper to accurately tell a story has diminished.

NOMINALLY been part of the Bush Administration??? The EPA, like every other agency is directly UNDER the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the Government. It is how the Government of this country is organized. Nominally suggests that it is under one group yet led by another which is just dumb on the surface.

Did they just fire all the editors or just hire ones from Regents University and University of Idaho School of Communications?

But, really great Fear, Uncertainty and Dread article, short on fact and looooong on BS.

McBear, Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Ever since Murdoch took over the wall street journal the ability of the paper to accurately tell a story has diminished.

NOMINALLY been part of the Bush Administration??? The EPA, like every other agency is directly UNDER the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the Government. It is how the Government of this country is organized. Nominally suggests that it is under one group yet led by another which is just dumb on the surface.

Did they just fire all the editors or just hire ones from Regents University and University of Idaho School of Communications?

But, really great Fear, Uncertainty and Dread article, short on fact and looooong on BS.

Geeze bear: You must have missed as many government classes as you did economics classes in college--you did go to college didn't you? As most people know, the EPA is an Independent Agency of the US government. And as most college graduates know, Independent Agencies of the United States government are those that exist outside of the departments of the executive branch. They are established through separate statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work toward, as well as what substantive areas, if any, over which it may have the power of rule-making. These agency rules (or regulations), while in force, have the power of federal law. But the EPA is independent!

For each fiscal year (which runs from October through September), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops a proposed budget. The budget defines the goals and objectives towards which the Agency intends to work within the fiscal year and the funding the Agency believes is necessary to accomplish these goals and objectives. This budget is combined with the budgets of the rest of the Executive Branch and is then sent by the President to the Congress (this occurs in the first quarter of the calendar year). The Congress then acts on the various budgets by developing, amending, and, ultimately, passing bills which enact the budgets into law (normally prior to the start of the fiscal year covered by the budget). At this point the enacted budget becomes the blueprint for the Agencyâ€™s activities during the next fiscal year.

And you might want to wander through the reorganization documents from 1970 which clearly state that the Administrators, appointed by the President are "compensated comparable to those fixed for other officers in the executive branch who have similar responsibilities." And they have a very similar org charts to other AGENCIES within the Federal Government.